She has forsaken the love of her children in exchange for control of a small portion of the multi billion dollar Hancock Estate and rightfully belonging to her children, either for some personal insecurity issue or because she loves money more than her kids.
Even their legal team can't touch her because she's so powerful. Wealth wins out over fairness every time.
As much as many of the wealthy would love to - they can't take their cash with them when their time is up.
GINA Rinehart turned her family's trust dispute on its head, with a bold move revealed in court yesterday which puts three of her children at risk of financial ruin.
The family fall-out between Australia's richest person and her three eldest children took another twist as the Supreme Court was told the iron ore magnate has changed the vesting date of the family trust from 2068 to now - but the move, done on April 30, gives her children little more than paper money.
The move means Mrs Rinehart can no longer use her own discretion to divide up the wealth of the trust as she sees fit, as was a condition of the 1988 Hope Margaret Hancock trust.
But as she controls 75 per cent of the family's premier mining company Hancock Prospecting, she can decide if they are to receive dividends.
If the children apply for their shares in the company, they could face multi-million dollar tax complications which may bankrupt them.
And even if they got control of them, they would be unable to sell the shares because of a deed that prohibits anyone but "lineal descendants" of Mrs Rinehart having ownership of Hancock Prospecting.
She now holds her children's 25 per cent share of the Hancock Prospecting empire in a "bare trust" - and the court heard yesterday that John, Hope and Bianca will continue their Supreme Court action to have her removed as head of that trust.
The legal action began last September, just days after the vesting date of the trust that could have netted the children $1 billion each was pushed back 57 years.
Ginia, the youngest of the billionaire's four children and the daughter whose 25th birthday was supposed to mark the vesting date, is the only one who has sided with her mother in the dispute.
In an email to her children on September 3, Mrs Rinehart referred to advice she had from PricewaterhouseCoopers warning that the children could be pushed to "financial ruin" and each face a capital gains tax liability of $150 million if it were to vest now.
But the court heard that despite requesting this document "for seven or eight months", the children had yet to see it.
http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/s ... 6351408285" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
